just wondering if there is a difference (conciderable) between these two speeds? is there a noticeable difference? refering to hard drive speedsasus pn5-e slic2d e66004gb ramevga 8800gts super clockedvista 32 hm prmwd 250 gb hd

>just wondering if there is a difference (conciderable)>between these two speeds? is there a noticeable difference?>refering to hard drive speeds>>>asus pn5-e sli>c2d e6600>4gb ram>evga 8800gts super clocked>vista 32 hm prm>wd 250 gb hd>Access times will be a about 1/3 faster (talking a few milliseconds is all), but beyond that, with the larger burst cache transfer rates with the SATA 2 it is doubtful there will be any signficant differences in FSX as long as you are comparing decent SATA 2 drives for example. I have 15,000 SCSIs that I have FSX on, and a 7200 SATA 2 that I have FS9 on. The SATA 2 has a 5y warranty, and a superior burst transfer rate. I would not own another 15,000 SCSI after having used the SATA 2 drive. They are both Seagates, with 5y warranties, and the 15K SCSI is about 5-6x more expensive. How you lay out you installation, and all the rest, is arguably more important than the access time issue. I do use the SCSI for Gigastudio which needs fast access times for realtime disk streaming sample playback (digital musical instrument) and there may be some benefit in this situation.

I agree 100% with Noel, but there are some here that will argue percentage increased performance times during flight and other technical specifications between the drives, but I will just share my personal experience with you. I alreay owned a 10K Raptor when I built my computer and have since bought 3 addtional 7200 SATA drives with between 16mb and 32 mb cache: WD, Samsung and Seagate. Initial loads of MSFS and flights from my Raptor seem a lot faster than on any of my 7200 RPM drives -- I DO notice the difference in RPM speed when I am forced to use one of the other "slower" drives. What I DON'T notice is any perfomance DECREASE with the Raptor due to the lower response times or cache -- and I have Fight Sim loaded on both 16 and 32 mgb cache drives.For me, I will stay with my 10K Raptor as my primary flight simulator drive -- because program load times are faster. I don't think I would recommend the extra expense of a Raptor just for that though, if you don't already have one, or have experience with one.HTH

I once tested both, loading the same flight7200 rpm: 65 sec10000 rpm: 51 secAs you can see, it was about 1/3 faster as was said.But that was the only difference I saw. Flight load time.During flying, I didn't notice any difference between a 7200 and 10000 rpm drive.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

my personal experience with you. >>I alreay owned a 10K Raptor when I built my computer and have>since bought 3 addtional 7200 SATA drives with between 16mb>and 32 mb cache: WD, Samsung and Seagate. Initial loads ofWas the Seagate one of the new 7200.11 drives?

hi guys sorry for the delay! so i quess that the cost for a 10k vs. performance increase isn't quite worth it. my machine is going in for an update today going from an e6600 to a e8600 so hopefully that will improve the speed. does anyone have a link to some instructions for overclocking? hopefully in laymens terms as I am not familiar with the process. I have used the asus AI overclock but only goes to 2.66 up from 2.4. Thanks for all your help

>Was the Seagate one of the new 7200.11 drives?Yes, but in all honest I've only booted it up 3 times. I intend to do more testing with it this weekend when my new Corsair memory and XP 64 bit arrives.

Ricky76 -- there are lots here just in the past two months -- and on the internet. Do an advanced search here in the hardware forum for the name of your processor and maybe your mother board too and see what you come up with. If not, IM me and I'll send you some links that I've used -- I'm new to OCing too, and the one thing I've learned is go slow, and tweak much. It's really an art, not a science.

Im not going to get into ithttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193836.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193837.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193838.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193839.jpgThats all you need to knowA single Vaptor will cream any SATA II drive on the market and also cream its 1.5GB/s 1st Generation sibling which out performs the 3BG/s 32MB cache 500GB hard drive where it counts.. FILE READSI would pay more attention to those 7-10 second load times being better... that translates to faster scenery and texture loads in a application where every millisecond counts.A Vrap is well worth the purchase.. worth its weight to FSXIf you intend to go qith 1st gen 10K then go with the 150 and dont bother with RAID unless you are on a controller card and use a 250K STRIPE size. I have posted the evidence and explained the tech over and over... The advantages to the 10K drives are in their low ACCESS time and high disk rotation speed for FSX which is a RANDOM ACCESS application and needs that advantageThere is such a thing as MAXED OUT... 4 drive 32MB cach SATA RAID, 2 drive Vrap, SCSI RAID and SSD on the right controller will max out what a system can translate to use in FSX so there is no need to go further than that.good luck

Nick N. wrote:>>Im not going to get into itUh, I think your post pretty much . . . says it all, Nick. Thanks!

Its like thisIf you are on a slow system to begin with and dont really push scenery sliders... dont spend the money on the expensive storage solution.. but if you are pushing the edge and want the best the system can give you, spend the money.. especially running heavy iron like PMDG, etcIts a combination of things that makes FSX deliver the goods. Matched components such as memory. CPU. video card, storage, motherboard and the proper tuning is what does the magic.There is no single silver bullet

gottcha, patience is the key I quess OR the lottery. my level d and 737 pic runs well but its the pmdg 747 and md11 that make frustrating. I know I know turn down the sliders but hey what can I say I am also an eye candy junkie too. Ill wait and see what difference this new cpu makes. Thanks for your input

ricky76:What are you going to do with that e8600?

LEts put it like thisYou can buy 2 1st Gen 10K Raptors and RAID them on a professional RAID card the right way and a single VRap will dang near beat the RAID array2 1stGen RAPs @ 175 bucks = 3501 RAID card @ 350 bucks= 700 dollars1 VRap @ 300 bucksOr lets take it a step further.. lets put the VRap on a 350 dollar professional card which actually allows the drive to run at its full potential as a single drive, better than a motherboard port350 (card) + 300 (Vrap) = 650 bucks and FASTER than the 2x 1.5 1st gen Raptor RAID @ 700 bucksThe VRap is worth the price, period. Given it can as a single drive on a 3GB/s motherboard port almost overcome a 700 dollar solution for 300 bucks, its worth every pennyanother benchmark test...Here is the ONLY part of the benchmark HD Tach that means anything to FSX... Same drives as above, same orderhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193862.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193863.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193864.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/193865.jpgThe lower access time when added to the drive true READ speed from the ATTO tests is the key to FSX texture and scenery loadsAlso anything more than 6% CPU use and you are eating CPU that FSX needs. Many drives and motherbaord SATA controllers especially motherboard RAID setups eat 10% or more.. thats FSX deathSo there you have itthe proof is in the benchmark runs and the RIGHT parts of those tests to evaluateThe read test in HDTach is a SEQUENTIAL READ test and means nothing to FSX. FSX is a RANDOM ACCESS/READ application, not SEQUENTIALI would take a 150GB/s 1st Gen Raptor with NO partitions on it and properly defragged (no more than 65% full) dedicated to FSX alone (no OS) over any other drive... except a Vrap which the tests above say it allThose 3BG/s 32MB cache drives are WONDERFUL but ONLY IN RAID0 (multi drive 2 or more) ON A 3GB/s PROFESSIONAL RAID CARD Thats the marketing department working and the part they do not tell you about the drives when you read the descriptions... a single 32MB cache 3GB/s drive of current design will NEVER beat a 150-300GB 10K Raptor of either generation

An even better idea would be to save your money and put it toward a solid state drive. I almost grabbed two more HD